Police Arrest Woman For Videotaping Them From Her Front Yard: (Wait till you see this tape!)

Originally posted by Kitilani
If it were against the law to say more than you should in Rochester the streets would be empty and even many of the officers I would call good cops would be in jail as well. Maybe she should not have said it. Maybe in America people should not be arrested for saying things though. Just a thought.

Your missing the point, the point is the whole situation may have gone differently if she hadn't been defiant when it wasn't a necessity. Plus IMO the biggest factor on the cop's side is they never once asked her to stop recording.

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by Manhater

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by SFA437

 

Forgot who said it, but, they said they did arrest one guy and they let the other 2 or 3 go. Not sure.

edit on 24-6-2011 by Manhater because: (no reason given)

Nope. No one said that anywhere on any page in this thread. Not once. No one even hinted at it.

Just again to highlight, the only people defending this man are all resorting to "imagining" things that happened or were said in order to justify said defense. It ain't floatin'.

edit on 24-6-2011 by Kitilani because: (no reason given)

yes, they did, go back and read all practically 40 pages of the thread. I saw it in here some where.

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by SFA437
You did not say he most likely was, nor did you say you felt like he was... you stated, unequivocally that

Every bit as much as your murder in the home and search warrants. Thank you!

I was describing an extension of a crime scene to include the typical reaction gap of an officer as well as a crime scene not being limited to, for example, a dead body.

You stated you knew what the officer was thinking which can only come through personal interaction with that officer.

You're welcome.

reply to post by Manhater


Kitilani said it. Twice. Now of course there is denial of ever making those statements...

You stated you knew what the officer was thinking which can only come through personal interaction with that officer.

ever stop to think maybe they just know how a cop may think because oh idk they are either an officer themselves, related to or know an officer?. I myself know why the officer felt uncomfortable with the lady standing there. They never claimed to be uncomfortable by the camera, just her proximity

reply to post by SFA437


What search warrant?

Complete bs and red herring that has nothing to do with anything.

And some of the Abu Ghraib people were MPs in the National Guard, sworn cops at home.

Charles Graner...

After his marriage, he moved to Butler, Pennsylvania, a coal mining area of 12,500 people in southwestern Pennsylvania, where his wife's family resided. From 1990 to 1994, he worked as a school custodian.[citation needed] In 1994, he began working as a Corrections officer at Fayette County Prison in a shift with a "no-nonsense reputation." Once, Graner was accused of putting mace in a new guard's coffee as a joke, causing him to be sick.[6]

In May 1996, he moved to the State Correctional Institution - Greene, a maximum-security prison in Greene County, Pennsylvania. Almost 70 percent of the inmates were black, many from large cities, but it was located in a rural part of the state and more than 90 percent of the guards were white.[5]

Guards at the prison were accused of beating and sexually assaulting prisoners and conducting cavity searches in view of other prisoners. There were also reports of racism, including reports of guards writing "KKK" in the blood of a beaten prisoner. In 1998, two guards were fired and 20 others were suspended, demoted or reprimanded for prisoner abuse.[6][7]

In 1998, a prisoner accused Graner and three other guards of planting a razor blade in his food, causing his mouth to bleed when he ate it.[5] The prisoner accused the guards of first ignoring his cries for help and then punching and kicking him when they took him to the nurse. Graner was accused of telling him to "Shut up, 'n-word', before we kill you."[6] The allegations were denied; although a federal magistrate judge ruled that the charges had "arguable merit in fact and law," the case was dismissed when the prisoner disappeared after his release.[6]

Graner and four other guards were also accused of beating another prisoner who had deliberately flooded his cell, taunting anti-capital punishment protesters, using racial epithets and telling a Muslim inmate he had rubbed pork all over his tray of food.[6]

A second lawsuit involving Graner was brought by a prisoner who claimed that guards made him stand on one foot while handcuffed and tripped him. This allegation, however, was ruled to have been made too late under the statute of limitations.[3][5]

en.wikipedia.org...

True I exaggerated a bit..not all the military police involved were active cops back home, but they were still cops, and most likely would have been hired by a police force somewhere after their military experience.

Originally posted by ABWarrior58

Originally posted by PsykoOps
These days you have to explain your rights to leo's all the time. So I think that it was necessary.

LEO's know what you're rights are. By her saying that all she does is show a defiant attitude when it wasn't necessary

Actually more than often they dont. Especially when it comes to filming or taking pictures.

reply to post by apacheman


Oh hell brother... MPs are NOT cops in any way, shape or form. That is why the Army has CID

Corrections officers are not law enforcement either as they do not have to be sworn to perform the functions of their job.

Originally posted by SFA437
reply to post by Manhater

 

Kitilani said it. Twice. Now of course there is denial of ever making those statements...

Do you know how many people have posted in this thread? And, I'm not about to go back to square one to find it. I never said that Kitilani said it. But, I'm pretty sure, I saw someone post either from an article or from a regular post. Not a 100% sure. So, don't take it with a grain of salt.

Simple, she put those officers in danger and she was wrong.

Originally posted by ABWarrior58

You stated you knew what the officer was thinking which can only come through personal interaction with that officer.

ever stop to think maybe they just know how a cop may think because oh idk they are either an officer themselves, related to or know an officer?. I myself know why the officer felt uncomfortable with the lady standing there. They never claimed to be uncomfortable by the camera, just her proximity

I was one for 12 years. I know why he probably felt uncomfortable having a confrontational subject within his reactionary gap. I do not know for sure. Kitalini however does and has stated so.

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Actually more than often they don't. Especially when it comes to filming or taking pictures.

Weather that's true or not(sorry i disagree) would you like people going to your job and tell you what you're doing is right or wrong?By that I mean people who arn't your bosses or co-wokers.The point is her mouth and attitude got her in trouble

Originally posted by SFA437

Kitalini however does and has stated so.

my mistake for not seeing that post, but being a former officer yourself ( as long as you don't advocate complacency) you understand the officer's concern

Originally posted by Manhater
Do you know how many people have posted in this thread? And, I'm not about to go back to square one to find it. I never said that Kitilani said it. But, I'm pretty sure, I saw someone post either from an article or from a regular post. Not a 100% sure. So, don't take it with a grain of salt.

Simple, she put those officers in danger and she was wrong.

Kitilani did say it- I've pulled her multiple quotes up several times.

Of course now Kitilani is stating she never said what she is quoted as having said.

No he said!No She said! haha

Originally posted by ABWarrior58

Originally posted by SFA437

Kitalini however does and has stated so.

my mistake for not seeing that post, but being a former officer yourself ( as long as you don't advocate complacency) you understand the officer's concern

I definitely do not advocate complacency. The end goal is going home at the end of shift.

Being that there was prior negative interaciton to wit the officer saying the woman made him nervous because of what she said before (got no clue what it was) the officer was within the scope of his duty to expand the scene to include the woman's yard in order to remove whatever he saw as a possible threat.

Originally posted by SFA437

Originally posted by Manhater
Do you know how many people have posted in this thread? And, I'm not about to go back to square one to find it. I never said that Kitilani said it. But, I'm pretty sure, I saw someone post either from an article or from a regular post. Not a 100% sure. So, don't take it with a grain of salt.

Simple, she put those officers in danger and she was wrong.

Kitilani did say it- I've pulled her multiple quotes up several times.

Of course now Kitilani is stating she never said what she is quoted as having said.

Those said quotes are hers. Yes. But, she's not the only one on here, that has posted to this thread. If there was some sort of like search feature to find it, I would try to find it myself, and admit I'm wrong. But there's not and I'm not reading another 40 pages. But, I remember seeing it posted.

Originally posted by SFA437

the officer was within the scope of his duty to expand the scene to include the woman's yard in order to remove whatever he saw as a possible threat.

i think we've been agreeing with each other this whole time lol just never realized it haha.

Originally posted by SFA437

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by SFA437

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by Manhater

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by SFA437

 

Forgot who said it, but, they said they did arrest one guy and they let the other 2 or 3 go. Not sure.

edit on 24-6-2011 by Manhater because: (no reason given)

Nope. No one said that anywhere on any page in this thread. Not once. No one even hinted at it.

Just again to highlight, the only people defending this man are all resorting to "imagining" things that happened or were said in order to justify said defense. It ain't floatin'.

edit on 24-6-2011 by Kitilani because: (no reason given)

Nope nobody ever said it.......

Originally posted by Kitilani
They pulled over "3" people. They arrested a 4th person and they let one suspect go. Tell me what is missing.

Originally posted by Kitilani
Since the woman who was arrested was not one of the three men pulled over, I would guess that makes her that 4th person.

Can you read at all? Read what you just quoted as many times as it takes. I never said any of the three men that were pulled over were arrested. I specifically said a 4th person, not involved in the stop, was arrested - that being the woman. There is no way you are really this bad at reading English.

Three men were pulled over but were somehow not in the vehicle?? Jesus H Christ make some sense for once!

What the hell are you reading?????????

When did I ever say that the three men were not in a vehicle? I do not understand what you are doing but reading is not it. How do I even respond to this? I never said they were not in a vehicle so I have no clue how to explain it. Can you explain how you read that?

Is this how weak the defense of this cop has become? You have to resort to arguing with me over things I have not written?

Originally posted by ABWarrior58

Originally posted by Kitilani
If it were against the law to say more than you should in Rochester the streets would be empty and even many of the officers I would call good cops would be in jail as well. Maybe she should not have said it. Maybe in America people should not be arrested for saying things though. Just a thought.

Your missing the point, the point is the whole situation may have gone differently if she hadn't been defiant when it wasn't a necessity. Plus IMO the biggest factor on the cop's side is they never once asked her to stop recording.

You are missing the point that I am not the least bit concerned with anyone's fantasy woulda shoulda couldas. None of the made up things that could have happened impress me since you know, they didn't happen.

Originally posted by Manhater
yes, they did, go back and read all practically 40 pages of the thread. I saw it in here some where.

No they did not and I have no idea how to quote something no one ever said for you so you are going to have to find it for me, otherwise I am calling BS. Because there are more than enough pages of lies and imaginative scenarios about how many people there were, who did and said what, and who was murdered in her house I just cannot help but notice it when it starts happening for no reason at all too. I guess maybe hoping to confuse the argument with nonsense would be the goal, not sure. No one said it though.